People v. Powers, 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 709

Powers was convicted of four misdemeanor counts for making annoying telephone calls to Cold Stone Creamery’s customer service line.
Messages left were lengthy, vulgar, and included sexually derived terms, but not lewdly used or aimed to threaten a recipient.
No one at Cold Stone answered live; messages were recorded and played in evidence.
Trial court found the language “obscene” and intended to harass; powers was placed on probation and fined.
Appellate court reversed, holding the recordings did not constitute substantial evidence of a violation of §653m(a) and discussing Hernandez and In re C.C. for obscenity standards.
Court emphasizes the goal of §653m is to deter intrusive, annoying calls while distinguishing cases with threats or lewd obscenity from ordinary customer-service complaints.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the calls violated §653m(a)	Powers’ messages used obscene language and threatened harm.	Hernandez standard supports treating vulgarity as obscene.	No, messages were not obscene or threats; no substantial evidence of §653m(a) violation.
How obscenity is defined for §653m(a) purposes	Obscene language is defined broadly to deter intrusion.	Obscene must be viewed in context; not all vulgarity is obscene.	C.C. better reasoned; not all vulgarities in calls are obscene for §653m(a) without lewd use.
Sufficiency of the evidence to support conviction	Recordings show harassment and objective threat.	Absent lewd, threatening language, evidence is insufficient.	Judgment reversed; lack of substantial evidence to sustain §653m(a) convictions.

People v. Hernandez, 231 Cal.App.3d 1376 (1991) (defines obscene language for §653m and privacy intrusion concerns)
In re C.C., 178 Cal.App.4th 915 (2009) (text messaging not obscene when vulgarities not lewd; context matters)